close_document

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does disclose one important behavior: the document is closed without an automatic save. However, it does not clarify what happens to unsaved changes (discarded, prompted, or preserved in memory), which is the key behavioral risk of a close operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no filler and the key qualifier is front-loaded near the action. It is concise, though the word 'automatically' adds slight ambiguity and could have been replaced with a clearer statement about unsaved changes.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a close operation with no annotations, an agent needs to know whether to save first, what happens when doc_name is null, and whether unsaved changes are lost. The description provides none of this context, despite the surrounding sibling tools making save-before-close a relevant workflow.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the doc_name parameter or the meaning of null/default. Since the description's only mention is 'a FreeCAD document', it adds no real parameter-level meaning beyond what the parameter name itself implies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Close'), the resource ('a FreeCAD document'), and a key qualifier ('without saving it automatically'), making the core purpose understandable. It does not explicitly name or differentiate sibling close-related flows such as save_document, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over save_document, save_document_as, or open_document, or about prerequisites such as saving before closing if changes must be kept. The qualifier implies no auto-save but does not instruct an agent on sequencing or avoiding data loss.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.